Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

So because one theory is no Goid, we aren't allowed say another one isn't?

Strange way of thinking.

Yep, that's what I'm saying!

Of course not. Debate is one of the greatest past times, that's why I ask.

[drstrange169]

Generally speaking, I don't think that Christer gets any kind of "beating", unless he starts it. The whole "immoral" fuss is a classic example of that.

It is fair to say that Trevor is "beaten up" to far greater extent, if anyone is interested enough to count these kind of things.

[Trevor Marriott]

Generally speaking, I don't think that Christer gets any kind of "beating", unless he starts it. The whole "immoral" fuss is a classic example of that.

It is fair to say that Trevor is "beaten up" to far greater extent, if anyone is interested enough to count these kind of things.

Beaten up, you are having a laugh, the only thing beaten up is Christer and Ed`s misguided belief that Lechmere was a killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Generally speaking, I don't think that Christer gets any kind of "beating", unless he starts it.

Ah, Dusty, I don´t mind a bit of a tussle every now and then. It seems unavoidable out here, but as long as I am not the one sporting a black eye afterwards, who am I to complaint?

[harry]

Colombo,
In one of your recent posts,you congratulated Fisherman on a sound and well prepared theory,but you also said you did not believe Cross was the killer. Would you care to explain why Fisherman did not convince you?
Also,can you explain why my responses in support of Cross's innocence is met with the response rubbish, when it mirrors your own view that Cross was not the killer.
You w ill find my friend that being supportive of fisherman as you now seem to be,you w ill be highly welcombed,but as soon as you dissent,you will not find him the gentleman and scholar he would want posters to think he is.

[Fisherman]

Colombo,
In one of your recent posts,you congratulated Fisherman on a sound and well prepared theory,but you also said you did not believe Cross was the killer. Would you care to explain why Fisherman did not convince you?
Also,can you explain why my responses in support of Cross's innocence is met with the response rubbish, when it mirrors your own view that Cross was not the killer.
You w ill find my friend that being supportive of fisherman as you now seem to be,you w ill be highly welcombed,but as soon as you dissent,you will not find him the gentleman and scholar he would want posters to think he is.

Maybe it would be a bit more gentlemanly to allow Columbo to decide for himself what I am about - and what you are about.
Who knows, he may take a disliking to your taking it upon yourself to tarnish me.
Some people do, you know.

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I was simply asking Colombo for an explanation.He made a comment,he should be able to explain it.
I cannot stop him from deciding, whatever the decisions be.If he dislikes me so be it,i doubt he will be the only one,and no I haven't tarnished you,you did that yourself ages ago.
Well Colombo are you going to speak up for yourself,or are you willing for Fisherman to do it for you.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I was simply asking Colombo for an explanation.He made a comment,he should be able to explain it.
I cannot stop him from deciding, whatever the decisions be.If he dislikes me so be it,i doubt he will be the only one,and no I haven't tarnished you,you did that yourself ages ago.
Well Colombo are you going to speak up for yourself,or are you willing for Fisherman to do it for you.

The difference between you and me in this respect, Harry, is that you don´t find me saying derogatory things about you to other posters. When and if I have an issue with you, I speak to you about it.
I would be grateful if you could manage to do the same.

We need to draw the line somewhere, you see.

PS. It is interesting that you are able to first say "...as soon as you dissent, you will not find him the gentleman and scholar he would want posters to think he is", and then move on to claiming that you have not tarnished me. Maybe you need to think that one over.

[Patrick S]

41 pages of arguing whether Lechmere used the name Cross under false pretenses and probably 5 with useful information. Ugh.

Anyway, how does this theory differentiate from the Feigenbuam theory that Mr. Marriott put forth?

Seriously, I would like to know what you think.

Columbo:

The discovery of Cross/Lechmere name inconsistency was and is a major contribution to our knowledge of the Nichols' murder and those associated with the case. It's an interesting bit of information that has helped us all to understand more about who this man was, what his life was like (as previous attempts to research "Cross" proved less than fruitful).

But, what did the research turn up? Evidence of mental illness? No. Evidence of criminal activity? No. Arrest record? Violent behavior? No. Nothing. Okay. So he was an exceptionally talented psychopath. He was never caught. Doing....ANYHTING. But was did we FIND OUT? What do we KNOW?

Well, we found out that he had exceptionally stable employment (no mean feat considering his time and place earth), 25 years as an employee at Pickfords. We learned he was married to one woman for 50+ years and had more than 10 children. After his retirement he opened a business, a small shop. Upon his death (of natural causes as at an advanced age) he left his wife a respectable sum. All but one of his children survived infancy. Most became professionals of some sort or another, clerks and the like. I can draw many conclusions from this information. Lifelong serial killer is not - sadly - among them.

Ah. But what of this name issue. It's what drew all of our interest after all. It's suspicious, isn't it? Here is how I addressed that in an early post:

The fact that Lechmere’s name is reported in both “The Times” and “The Telegraph” as “Cross” has recently been scrutinize, causing some to view Lechmere with suspicion. It should be noted that Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances.

Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – AS A RULE – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).

It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”. The Telegraph also reports that Lechmere stated that he was a carman, “employed by Messrs. Pickford and Co”. This was Lechmere’s actual employer. Other reports have him providing his genuine address. It is apparent that Lechmere was not making an effort to conceal his identity.

It should be noted, also, that Lechmere came forward of his own accord, appearing at the inquest voluntarily. He was not summoned in that PC Mizen did not ask he and Paul to provide him with their names when they met in Baker’s Row on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. It’s also clear that the police were not looking for Lechmere when he appeared to offer testimony. It seems likely that Lechmere had either read or been made aware of Robert Paul’s statement published the previous day in Lloyd’s Weekly. As has been discussed, Paul overstated his own role and marginalized Lechmere’s to a great extent. If he had killed Nichols, why not let Paul do just that? Why not remain hidden, unnamed?

To put it simply this is my OPINION: "Fisherman" and his companion Eddie found something quite interesting: this Cross/Lechmere name business. Suspicious, no doubt. So, one must look further. And look "Fisherman" and Eddie did. And they found....what? Nothing. Nothing at all to put WITH this one suspicious element in ALL of our exposure to Lechmere as an actor in Buck's Row/Baker's Row and as a witness at the inquest. Again, they found no arrest records. They found no spouses claiming violence. No sisters saying he whacked them about and killed animals while visiting the neighborhood brothel. No evidence that he was a lifelong bachelor, unable to form relationships. No evidence he was sexually inadequate or mentally ill or impaired. As we see from the information posted above. What we found was quite the opposite.

So where did that leave the theory? Well, it leaves it to rely upon INVENTION and EXCEPTIONS. That is to say that since there is NOTHING in the information we have to suggest that this man was a killer. In fact, what we KNOW tell us that he was very likely a simply law abiding citizen. Thus, We must invent 'Mizen Scams' by interpreting news reports in ways that require - to be kind - more than modest leaps in logic. We take news reports from 1888 and call them "blood evidence". We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.

And then we have the EXCEPTIONS. Ah, yes. We hear about the seeming "normal" serial killers who had wives and lives and careers. All those serial killers who were model citizens, productive, stable, long marriages, careers, ambitious, upwardly mobile, successful (and prolific) parents. And we are told - essentially - that these exceptions are actually the rule. And that what we actually KNOW about Lechmere is actually damning! Alas, we are not bright enough - as "Fisherman" tells it - to understand what is obvious to him: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and, like, a bunch of other serial killers over his long life).

And so it goes.

[CertainSum1]

We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.

One must believe these traits are true of Lechmere in order to rule him out.

[Fisherman]

One must believe these traits are true of Lechmere in order to rule him out.

Bingo.

Plus one must predispose that Mizen either lied or misheard.

If we dare to think that the PC was truthful - that will suffice - then we must accept that Lechmere lied. And if Lechmere lied, he did so for a reason. Either he thought up a very elaborate lie to be able to pass Mizen in order to get to work in time (which he would not do anyway) - or he was the Ripper.

Does giving the wrong name to the police support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does the fact that Jason Payne-James pointed out that Lechmere fit the blood evidence if everything went down along a normal schedule support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does the fact that all the Ripper murders took place within a triangle formed by 22 Doveton Street, the Pickfords depot and his mother´s Cable Street and Mary Ann Street addresses support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does having been found alone with the victim support such a suggestion? There´s no need to answer that one.

And so on and so forth; it is a mighty chain that can be forged. No such chain can be forged against any other suspect. Not nearly. They are all, more or less, suspects on account of having been proven violent. Nothing else. They are not tied to the murders in any shape of form.

[Columbo]

Fisherman,
I was simply asking Colombo for an explanation.He made a comment,he should be able to explain it.
I cannot stop him from deciding, whatever the decisions be.If he dislikes me so be it,i doubt he will be the only one,and no I haven't tarnished you,you did that yourself ages ago.
Well Colombo are you going to speak up for yourself,or are you willing for Fisherman to do it for you.

Hi Harry,

I will have to go back through my posts but I believe I said Cross was good for the Nichols murder but I don't know if he's JTR. If you could provide an example that would be helpful.

I have found a lot of posts here (including yours) that make some very good points against Fisherman's theory. Do any of these posts sway me in any direction? Not really, because they haven't been strong enough to disprove the theory posted on this thread, which for the most part deals with Lechmere using the name Cross to cover his butt, and lying to the cops.

I don't think your opinion about Cross being innocent is rubbish at all. That's your opinion and I respect that. I don't think I said Cross was innocent but it's certainly possible that he is. If I disagree with anything from your posts it may be your reasoning for your belief not the belief itself.

As a celebrated crime enthusiast (which may not be a good hobby, it's a good thing I have other interests) I try not to pick suspects in cases such as this because we all know we will never definitely know who JTR was. What I do know is who wasn't JTR and based on Fisherman's research and my own Cross does not fall under that category. He very well could have been JTR. He certainly is a strong suspect/person of interest for the Nichols murder and he needs to be fully explored.

Right now as it stands, this is a good theory and I feel it's plausible.

As for people getting nasty, or if there is retribution to be had over a disagreement, I'm not worried about it. I'm trying to find and converse with people who have a common interest with me. I'm not interested in petty bickering. Although I do enjoy a good ribbing once in a while

[Columbo]

Columbo:

The discovery of Cross/Lechmere name inconsistency was and is a major contribution to our knowledge of the Nichols' murder and those associated with the case. It's an interesting bit of information that has helped us all to understand more about who this man was, what his life was like (as previous attempts to research "Cross" proved less than fruitful).

But, what did the research turn up? Evidence of mental illness? No. Evidence of criminal activity? No. Arrest record? Violent behavior? No. Nothing. Okay. So he was an exceptionally talented psychopath. He was never caught. Doing....ANYHTING. But was did we FIND OUT? What do we KNOW?

Well, we found out that he had exceptionally stable employment (no mean feat considering his time and place earth), 25 years as an employee at Pickfords. We learned he was married to one woman for 50+ years and had more than 10 children. After his retirement he opened a business, a small shop. Upon his death (of natural causes as at an advanced age) he left his wife a respectable sum. All but one of his children survived infancy. Most became professionals of some sort or another, clerks and the like. I can draw many conclusions from this information. Lifelong serial killer is not - sadly - among them.

Ah. But what of this name issue. It's what drew all of our interest after all. It's suspicious, isn't it? Here is how I addressed that in an early post:

The fact that Lechmere’s name is reported in both “The Times” and “The Telegraph” as “Cross” has recently been scrutinize, causing some to view Lechmere with suspicion. It should be noted that Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances.

Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – AS A RULE – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).

It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”. The Telegraph also reports that Lechmere stated that he was a carman, “employed by Messrs. Pickford and Co”. This was Lechmere’s actual employer. Other reports have him providing his genuine address. It is apparent that Lechmere was not making an effort to conceal his identity.

It should be noted, also, that Lechmere came forward of his own accord, appearing at the inquest voluntarily. He was not summoned in that PC Mizen did not ask he and Paul to provide him with their names when they met in Baker’s Row on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. It’s also clear that the police were not looking for Lechmere when he appeared to offer testimony. It seems likely that Lechmere had either read or been made aware of Robert Paul’s statement published the previous day in Lloyd’s Weekly. As has been discussed, Paul overstated his own role and marginalized Lechmere’s to a great extent. If he had killed Nichols, why not let Paul do just that? Why not remain hidden, unnamed?

To put it simply this is my OPINION: "Fisherman" and his companion Eddie found something quite interesting: this Cross/Lechmere name business. Suspicious, no doubt. So, one must look further. And look "Fisherman" and Eddie did. And they found....what? Nothing. Nothing at all to put WITH this one suspicious element in ALL of our exposure to Lechmere as an actor in Buck's Row/Baker's Row and as a witness at the inquest. Again, they found no arrest records. They found no spouses claiming violence. No sisters saying he whacked them about and killed animals while visiting the neighborhood brothel. No evidence that he was a lifelong bachelor, unable to form relationships. No evidence he was sexually inadequate or mentally ill or impaired. As we see from the information posted above. What we found was quite the opposite.

So where did that leave the theory? Well, it leaves it to rely upon INVENTION and EXCEPTIONS. That is to say that since there is NOTHING in the information we have to suggest that this man was a killer. In fact, what we KNOW tell us that he was very likely a simply law abiding citizen. Thus, We must invent 'Mizen Scams' by interpreting news reports in ways that require - to be kind - more than modest leaps in logic. We take news reports from 1888 and call them "blood evidence". We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.

And then we have the EXCEPTIONS. Ah, yes. We hear about the seeming "normal" serial killers who had wives and lives and careers. All those serial killers who were model citizens, productive, stable, long marriages, careers, ambitious, upwardly mobile, successful (and prolific) parents. And we are told - essentially - that these exceptions are actually the rule. And that what we actually KNOW about Lechmere is actually damning! Alas, we are not bright enough - as "Fisherman" tells it - to understand what is obvious to him: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and, like, a bunch of other serial killers over his long life).

And so it goes.

Hi Patrick,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you but I will say this is a very well thought out post. I appreciate the fact that you have stated your opinion in detail without resorting to childish digs at people. Others should follow suit.

[GUT]

Hi Patrick,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you but I will say this is a very well thought out post. I appreciate the fact that you have stated your opinion in detail without resorting to childish digs at people. Others should follow suit.

Most of Patrick's posts are well argued.